Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. Huff (1881) · DecisionDepot

Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. Huff

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1881 No. No. 6,766Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the contract award was premature because the city failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of five days of publication for the notice inviting sealed proposals, excluding Sundays.

Issues

Whether the city council complied with the statutory requirement for five days of publication of a notice inviting sealed proposals for street work.

Disposition. Judgment reversed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Excluding Sunday from the five days required for the publication, the last publication should have been made on Monday, the 9th day of March.”

“It does not appear that any publication was made on that day, and if it was, the award on the 9th was premature.”

Synopsis

Street Assessment—Time.—The Act of April 4th, 1864, required that a notice inviting certain proposals should be published daily (Sundays excepted), in a daily newspaper, for five days. Held, that a publication commencing Wednesday, March 4th, and ending Sunday, March 8th, was insufficient. The last publication should have been on the 9th.

The Court : Action to recover for street work done in the city of Oakland. Article vii of the complaint avers (and the plaintiff is concluded [332]by the averment), that the city council passed a resolution ordering the work on the 3rd day of March, 1874, and published an invitation for sealed proposals for five days in the “ Oakland Daily News,” beginning on the 4th day of March, 1874. The 4th day of March, 1874, was Wednesday, and the fifth day for publication of the resolution was Monday. On the 9th day of March the award was made to the plaintiff’s assignor.

Section 5 of the Act of April 4th, 1864 (see Stats. 1863-64, p. 333), requires that a notice inviting sealed proposals shall be published for five days in a daily paper to be designated by the council. And by subdivision 6 of § 24 of the same act, it is provided that “ the publication of notices required by the provisions of the act shall be published daily (Sundays excepted) in a newspaper to be designated by the city council of said city.”

Excluding Sunday from the five days required for the publication, the last publication should have been made on Monday, the 9th day of March. It does not appear that any publication was made on that day, and if it was, the award on the 9th was premature. (The People of the City etc. v. McCain, 50 Cal. 210; Same v. McCain, 51 id. 360; Pol. Code, § 3259.)

Judgment reversed.

Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. Huff

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief